so basically we say sth is beautiful when it´s actually adecuate to the society to which it belongs?

Question

then beauty is just an abstract concept which cannot b explain and the theme of my paper has just lost it´s meaning. great, just great.

Answer 1

something is beautiful when we see it as a whole and we see the parts and the harmonious way the parts contribute to make the whole and then we get a kind of inner glow of joy at the rightness of it all

Answer 2

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That isn't a cliche for nothing. Everything is based on perception, whether that is individual perception or a group concensus perception. Perhaps that could be the theme of your paper. How can one person perceive that a supermodel is ugly when a large group of people perceive that she is beautiful? What are the abstract concepts that we use to make such a decision? Perhaps beauty is not a single concept but the summation of may different factors, any single one of which may change our perception from "beautiful" to "ugly".

Answer 3

No, beauty is not determined by adequacy for society.

We *evolved* to perceive some things beautiful, and other things not. Natural things, like certain animals, certain other people, etc. Some of these things it may have been good for our survive to like to look at--natural selection. And, some of these things we may have evolved to like in others because it was a sign of good genes--sexual selection (like a peacock).

Culture and society has been around only for several thousand years, and has not contributed to our evolution, nor to our evolution of the perception of beauty. Judgements of beauty have some differences from culture to culture, but there are huge similarities across cultures. ...scientists today tend to believe these similarities are due to our shared evolutionary history, not due to culture.

Now, non-natural things can also be beautiful, especially if they tap into the brain's existing mechanisms for beauty. E.g., we guys have brain mechanisms that make us respond to cleavage. Those same mechanisms respond even more loudly to larger, unnatural, plastic-surgery built-and-paid-for cleavage. (Not sure this is a real case of "beauty", but it gets at the natural versus artificial point.)

Most of the ideas here are not well worked out. That is, why exactly we perceive which things beautiful is not yet well-understood. But evolution is the only game in town in understanding this, so don't get put off by anti-evolution arguments you might run up against. Try a search on "evolutionary psychology" and "aesthetics" and "beauty".

Answer 4

Actually, there are several variations of your question out there and yours poses a different scenario. However, if you theme paper is going to be turned in eventually, you might want to start using spellcheck once in a while. The word adecuate is actually spelled "adequate". And what the heck is sth?

Answer 5

dont be unhappy rejoice , turn your paper into an inquisitorial, piece of work ,rather than proving a theory question,'' if beauty is in the eye of the beholder,what defines ugliness''
question,what part of our society determines who is beautiful and who is ugly,
question,how big or small part does the media play in the concept of a sterotype beautiful or ugly person....
then you site examples of sterotypical images of beauty/uglyness
site case histories of the extent that humans will go to to fit into a engineered example of a sterotypical beautiful person. good luck LF

Answer 6

I don't understand your question. Perhaps you could re-word so that I might try to answer it. The argument usually goes something like this: beauty is arbitrary. When we study what babies respond to we learn that they like for example, symmetry. So one might argue that symmetry is a constant beauty.

Answer 7

Studies show that infants respond more to an attractive face than to an unattractive face; therefore, no it isn't contingent on society.

Answer 8

You start by defining your perception of beauty